Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Thread Starter
Pearly White and Bendy
Pearly Whit your suggestion noted with thanks. An interesting article. Refer to my post above. Safe travels. Cheers. Glen
Bendy, thanks yet again, and i will call on you as required. Much appreciated. I think we are getting closer to the pointy end now. Fingers crossed.
Bendy, thanks yet again, and i will call on you as required. Much appreciated. I think we are getting closer to the pointy end now. Fingers crossed.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good summary of the Ombudsman's investigations to date.
___________________________________________________
Ombudsman finds Franchising Legal in APTA Case
https://www.australianflying.com.au/...l-in-apta-case
___________________________________________________
Ombudsman finds Franchising Legal in APTA Case
https://www.australianflying.com.au/...l-in-apta-case
A good summary of the Ombudsman's investigations to date.
___________________________________________________
Ombudsman finds Franchising Legal in APTA Case
https://www.australianflying.com.au/...l-in-apta-case
___________________________________________________
Ombudsman finds Franchising Legal in APTA Case
https://www.australianflying.com.au/...l-in-apta-case
"Conceptually, I accept CASA's view that the Ruling may reflect broader policy considerations.
"Nevertheless in my concluded view there was an administrative deficiency due to an absence of a direct relationship between the activity being regulated and the policy said to regulate it.
"This gave rise to ambiguity and uncertainty with the potential to cause detriment to those relying on the accuracy of the regime or, conversely, prevent detriment from occurring."
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman is now proceeding with Phase Two of the investigation, which will investigate the CASA action of serving a seven-day cease notice on APTA in October 2018 and CASA informing Buckley's new employer in August 2019 that his new role was "untenable" due to comments Buckley was making publicly.
"Nevertheless in my concluded view there was an administrative deficiency due to an absence of a direct relationship between the activity being regulated and the policy said to regulate it.
"This gave rise to ambiguity and uncertainty with the potential to cause detriment to those relying on the accuracy of the regime or, conversely, prevent detriment from occurring."
The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman is now proceeding with Phase Two of the investigation, which will investigate the CASA action of serving a seven-day cease notice on APTA in October 2018 and CASA informing Buckley's new employer in August 2019 that his new role was "untenable" due to comments Buckley was making publicly.
I predict, sadly, that the best Glen can hope for is a draw because CASA has the legal resources to take him all the way to the high court. The legal system is not known for producing justice.
CASA has the motivation to do this because the threat of unfettered, capricious and unjust persecution as allegedly inflicted on Glen and many others (see the Forsyth review) is the key source of their power.
All the best.
CASA has the motivation to do this because the threat of unfettered, capricious and unjust persecution as allegedly inflicted on Glen and many others (see the Forsyth review) is the key source of their power.
All the best.
Thread Starter
31/08/20
Dear Mr. Tony Mathews, Chair of the CASA Board.
I would like to make a request directly to the Board.
In my opinion, I am someone who has been adversely affected by the conduct of some members of CASA Executive Management. I am alleging that the conduct of those personnel was vindictive or vexatious, and had no basis at all in aviation safety. i.e. it was not well-intentioned.
It is reasonable to assume that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority would be well versed in risk management, safety cases, risk assessments, etc.
Prior to CASA initiating their action against my business in October 2018, there would be relevant documentation held by CASA, that would provide the "safety case" for the CASA action
This could be, the risk assessment, the safety case, or the "handover" notes associated with my transfer from CMT2 to CMT3. In fact, anything that CASA is able to provide in support of a safety case.
Therefore could I request that a copy of the associated documentation that CASA would hold. i.e. anything that supports the CASA safety case prior to initiating the action on October 23rd of 2018.
If this is not something that the Board would be prepared to provide to me, it would necessitate a Freedom of Information request, and that should not be necessary.
If it exists, it would already be held by the CASA Board.
Please note that I allege CASA has no documentation at all that justifies the safety case. Hence my reasonable conclusion that some Members of Executive management were acting vindictively or vexatiously.
The provision of such documentation would go a long way to discrediting my claim that "there was never a supporting safety case, CASA was acting vindictively and vexatiously".
I hope you will consider this fair and reasonable request. Respectfully, Glen Buckley.
Dear Mr. Tony Mathews, Chair of the CASA Board.
I would like to make a request directly to the Board.
In my opinion, I am someone who has been adversely affected by the conduct of some members of CASA Executive Management. I am alleging that the conduct of those personnel was vindictive or vexatious, and had no basis at all in aviation safety. i.e. it was not well-intentioned.
It is reasonable to assume that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority would be well versed in risk management, safety cases, risk assessments, etc.
Prior to CASA initiating their action against my business in October 2018, there would be relevant documentation held by CASA, that would provide the "safety case" for the CASA action
This could be, the risk assessment, the safety case, or the "handover" notes associated with my transfer from CMT2 to CMT3. In fact, anything that CASA is able to provide in support of a safety case.
Therefore could I request that a copy of the associated documentation that CASA would hold. i.e. anything that supports the CASA safety case prior to initiating the action on October 23rd of 2018.
If this is not something that the Board would be prepared to provide to me, it would necessitate a Freedom of Information request, and that should not be necessary.
If it exists, it would already be held by the CASA Board.
Please note that I allege CASA has no documentation at all that justifies the safety case. Hence my reasonable conclusion that some Members of Executive management were acting vindictively or vexatiously.
The provision of such documentation would go a long way to discrediting my claim that "there was never a supporting safety case, CASA was acting vindictively and vexatiously".
I hope you will consider this fair and reasonable request. Respectfully, Glen Buckley.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: US
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prior to CASA initiating their action against my business in October 2018, there would be relevant documentation held by CASA, that would provide the "safety case" for the CASA action
Therefore could I request that a copy of the associated documentation that CASA would hold. i.e. anything that supports the CASA safety case prior to initiating the action on October 23rd of 2018.
Therefore could I request that a copy of the associated documentation that CASA would hold. i.e. anything that supports the CASA safety case prior to initiating the action on October 23rd of 2018.
Then again - CASA has done many foolish things in its' tortuous history.
Glen, I’ve said this many times before. The Board does not make decisions except to hire and fire the CEO. They are guardians of the assets and decision making process, not the decisions. I don’t believe it’s Mr. Matthews role to make such decisions as you are seeking nor provide you with answers himself, let alone investigate the serious matters you’ve raised himself.
What he would normally do is pass the letter to CASA and ask for their advice they will investigate and provide the Board with an answer that will be sent to you.
Your request will probably be filtered down through CASA until it lands on the desk of whoever is responsible for inflicting things on you and they will write the Boards answer. In other words, expect a hostile response to your request. It will be written by the lower ranks of CASA and the Board is forced by precedent to accept it and probably tell you to eff off, although that might not be their personal opinion.
In my opinion, the only time the Board would get directly involved is if the administration had irretrievably broken down.
Best of luck.
What he would normally do is pass the letter to CASA and ask for their advice they will investigate and provide the Board with an answer that will be sent to you.
Your request will probably be filtered down through CASA until it lands on the desk of whoever is responsible for inflicting things on you and they will write the Boards answer. In other words, expect a hostile response to your request. It will be written by the lower ranks of CASA and the Board is forced by precedent to accept it and probably tell you to eff off, although that might not be their personal opinion.
In my opinion, the only time the Board would get directly involved is if the administration had irretrievably broken down.
Best of luck.
Thread Starter
Sunfish. I agree
A response is warranted. i think you are quite possibly correct Sunfish. Nevertheless, the response will be public and “telling”.
I predict, sadly, that the best Glen can hope for is a draw because CASA has the legal resources to take him all the way to the high court. The legal system is not known for producing justice.
CASA has the motivation to do this because the threat of unfettered, capricious and unjust persecution as allegedly inflicted on Glen and many others (see the Forsyth review) is the key source of their power.
All the best.
CASA has the motivation to do this because the threat of unfettered, capricious and unjust persecution as allegedly inflicted on Glen and many others (see the Forsyth review) is the key source of their power.
All the best.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a court of law, would not discovery produce the required documents? It would be rather foolish of CASA to deliberately withhold this information.
Then again - CASA has done many foolish things in its' tortuous history.
Then again - CASA has done many foolish things in its' tortuous history.
Not always, no. But the High Court has a proud history of producing justice on many occasions... Mabo, overturning Terra Nullius, finding an implied right to freedom of political communication in the constitution, overturning legislation aimed at controlling political advertising or regulating it, overturning a number of visa cancellations by the Minister for Home Au Pairs... there is hope...
Thread Starter
Negligent Misstatement
On some very sound advice, I am of the view that I have a potential claim of "negligent misstatement". Over the coming days, and prior to my Facebook conference, I will be making some posts that may appear somewhat obscure. Please bear with me, and it will all come together. This post is one of those and refers to the topic of negligent misstatement.
However, the decision in Derry v Peak was reviewed by the House of Lords in the landmark decision in Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners [1964] AC 465. The House of Lords considered that Derry v Peak did not decide anything regarding causes of action for negligent misstatement and limited the decision to actions in deceit.
In England Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners established that there might be liability in tort for negligent misstatement in circumstances in which information or advice is sought from a person possessing some special skill or judgment where that person knows or ought to know that reliance is being placed upon information or advice by the person seeking it.
Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners was considered and accepted by the Australian High Court in Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1968) 122 CLR 556 Per Barwick CJ:
The duty will arise whenever a person gives information or advice to another, whether that information is actively sought or merely accepted by that other upon a serious matter… and the relationship… arising out of the circumstances is such that on the one hand the speaker realizes or ought to realize that he is being trusted… to give the best of his information or advice as a basis for action on the part of the other party and it is reasonable in the circumstances for the other party to seek or accept and in either case to act upon that information or advice.However, Barwick CJ deviated from the English conception of the principle by determining the ‘special relationship’ between the parties did not require the speaker to have actual possession of skill or judgment or to profess to have any such skill or judgment on the matter.
This decision was rejected by the Privy Council on appeal and the decision was reversed.
However, in subsequent cases the views of Barwick CJ in Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1968) 122 CLR 556 have gained support.
Any uncertainty regarding this issue was subsequently resolved in the High Court’s decision in San Sebastian Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (1988) 162 CLR 340 where it was decided that the speaker need not possesses or claim to possess any special skill or experience.
Elements of the Cause of Action
There are three elements to a cause of action founded in negligence:
Pure Economic loss caused by negligent misstatement and the Duty of Care
A negligent misstatement is information or advice which is honestly provided but is inaccurate or misleading. The action for negligent misstatement is a comparatively recent common law development. In Derry v Peak (1889) 12 App Cas 337 the English Court of Appeal decided that a negligent misstatement was insufficient to support an action in deceit because a non-fraudulent misrepresentation in the absence of a contract or a fiduciary obligation was not enough to establish a duty of care.However, the decision in Derry v Peak was reviewed by the House of Lords in the landmark decision in Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners [1964] AC 465. The House of Lords considered that Derry v Peak did not decide anything regarding causes of action for negligent misstatement and limited the decision to actions in deceit.
In England Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners established that there might be liability in tort for negligent misstatement in circumstances in which information or advice is sought from a person possessing some special skill or judgment where that person knows or ought to know that reliance is being placed upon information or advice by the person seeking it.
Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Partners was considered and accepted by the Australian High Court in Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1968) 122 CLR 556 Per Barwick CJ:
The duty will arise whenever a person gives information or advice to another, whether that information is actively sought or merely accepted by that other upon a serious matter… and the relationship… arising out of the circumstances is such that on the one hand the speaker realizes or ought to realize that he is being trusted… to give the best of his information or advice as a basis for action on the part of the other party and it is reasonable in the circumstances for the other party to seek or accept and in either case to act upon that information or advice.However, Barwick CJ deviated from the English conception of the principle by determining the ‘special relationship’ between the parties did not require the speaker to have actual possession of skill or judgment or to profess to have any such skill or judgment on the matter.
This decision was rejected by the Privy Council on appeal and the decision was reversed.
However, in subsequent cases the views of Barwick CJ in Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1968) 122 CLR 556 have gained support.
Any uncertainty regarding this issue was subsequently resolved in the High Court’s decision in San Sebastian Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) (1988) 162 CLR 340 where it was decided that the speaker need not possesses or claim to possess any special skill or experience.
Elements of the Cause of Action
There are three elements to a cause of action founded in negligence:
- A legal duty must be recognized in the circumstances requiring a certain standard of conduct to protect against foreseeable risk.
- There must be a breach of that duty by failing to meet the requisite standard of care owed.
- And, finally, the plaintiff must have suffered a material injury as a result of the breach.
Thread Starter
POST 1179- CASA enforment Manual Link
Apologies, a seemingly obscure post at this stage. Simply the link to CASAs enforcement manual outlining procedures to be followed when CASA determines that they will vary, suspend or cancel an AOC. CASA will argue they never suspended my AOC. They did threaten to cancel it, and they most certainly varied it. They gave me only 7 days to operate.
CASA also directed that my Employment as a CASA approved HOO was "untenable based on comments I was making publicly" For CASA to direct that my Employer remove me from my CASA approved position entitles me to the procedures outlined in this manual. They were completely bypassed.
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...f/009rfull.pdf
CASA also directed that my Employment as a CASA approved HOO was "untenable based on comments I was making publicly" For CASA to direct that my Employer remove me from my CASA approved position entitles me to the procedures outlined in this manual. They were completely bypassed.
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...f/009rfull.pdf
